The race for the Oval office is on fire.

Both sides of the aisle are at each other’s throat, demanding change.

Just days after Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidential ticket the Democratic National Committee commenced its nomination of Hillary Clinton.

All as the nail biting race for the White House heats up.

At the moment, 46% of U.S. voters say they’ll vote for Trump in November.  About 45% say they want Hillary Clinton to be the next president. 

While markets are signaling a Clinton win, don’t place your bets just yet because this election has been a rule breaker. 

Who would have thought that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee and that Bernie Sanders, a socialist, would gather so much support?

As we noted the other day, markets have predicted who would win the Oval office 19 out of the last 22 times.  When stocks are higher in the months prior to the vote, the sitting party has won 86% of the presidential elections.  However, we don’t trust this theory because the market has been divorced from economic realities for the past several years.

As we did with Donald Trump, we wanted to point out how Clinton’s vision of the future could affect investors.

Let’s look at what Hillary Clinton brings to the table.

In accepting the nomination last week, Clinton has promised to “build bridges, not walls” with Americans and the global community.

She pointed out that there are a large number of disenfranchised Americans who believe the economy has not been working well over the last several years.  While she noted the economy is not working the way it should, she is promising to create greater opportunity with more jobs and rising wages.

One promise that stood out was her position on infrastructure.  Like Trump, she wants to improve our infrastructure.  She plans to increase funding by $275 billion over five years. In reference to fixing roads, bridges, airports and highways Hillary said, “In my first 100 days as president, we will make the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II.”

Such a move would again benefit companies such as Vulcan Materials (VMC) – which has more than doubled from a January 2016 low.  Vulcan is the largest producer of stone aggregates that are used in concrete. 

Other companies that could benefit from increased spending to update infrastructure include Astec Industries (ASTE), which builds portable machines that mix concrete and asphalt.  Likewise, engineering firms, such as Jacobs Engineering (JEC), could benefit. 

ASTE soared 73% from a late January 2016 low, and JEC jumped 55% from a February 2016 low on anticipation of greater demand for such projects.

The presidential nominee also proposed eliminating tuition for in-state students at public colleges (for families making less than $125,000 a year).  Called the Clinton New College Compact Plan, it’s expected to cost $350 billion over 10 years. She plans to fully fund this program by closing tax loopholes for those deemed the “most fortunate.”

In addition, she has promised to push for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which will allow illegal immigrants to become citizens, increase immigration enforcement and help foster future immigration.  That would be in addition to building on Obama’s Affordable Care Act and moving toward a goal of universal health care.

Her stance could greatly impact the health care sector.

Other policy proposals include installing 500 million photovoltaic panels by 2020, which would greatly benefit solar-related stocks.  That would equate to about 135 to 175 gigawatts of solar capacity, increasing U.S. capacity by more than six fold.

When it comes to taxes, Clinton says she will not raise taxes on the middle class.  Her plan leaves most of the tax code as is.  However, she has noted she would hike rates for the very wealthy, by using a 4% surcharge on incomes over $5 million and potentially increasing capital gains tax rates, which would negatively impact investors.

Clinton also noted that she does oppose unfair trade practices, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnerhip (TPP) – which would impose NAFTA-style terms on companies that relocate investments and jobs overseas.  In short, there’s a good reason both candidates do not support NAFTA.

The bottom line is Clinton is a government insider, who wants to grow the economy through increased government spending.  Trump is an outsider, who believes that jobs and economic growth can be created through the private sector.  Whoever wins, we hope they have better

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment